"'You don’t get a second time to shoot a Netflix show, right?' she said. 'It’s all or nothing.' On 'Mind Your Manners,' [Sara Jane] Ho’s self-assigned mandate is ambitious: 'Come with me, and you’ll know what to do anywhere, with anyone, in any situation.'... Ms. Ho takes a practical, international and surprisingly adaptive approach to manners. During an interview, she delivered an unprompted primer on the places and circumstances in which she might personally spit phlegm on the street.... She emphasizes the logic behind certain norms and bluntly rejects others she finds distasteful. (On drinking tea: 'Some people keep their pinkies out to keep balanced, but it looks really pretentious. Definitely pinkies in.')"
From "The Etiquette Guru Who Broke Up With a Boyfriend Over Text" by Maureen O'Connor (NYT).
I clicked through to that article because the headline is susceptible to 2 meanings and the one that came to mind for me was not the one the article was about. I thought the boyfriend used texting to do something wrong and the "guru" broke up with him because of it. But it wasn't that she broke up with him "over" his texting. She used texting to break up with him. I don't think deliberately creating double meanings like that is a good click bait strategy, so I'm going to assume this was simply bad editing.
Is bad editing like bad etiquette? Sort of! It displays a lack of concern for the comfort and convenience of your guests. In that case, I could be accused of bad etiquette by subjecting you, my reader, to something bad. But I'm writing this before publishing, and I have the opportunity to trash this and move on. Yet despite my reason for clicking, I liked this article, and the author probably didn't write the defective headline.
What did I like? The crudely subtle way the author conveyed disapproval of this Netflix character's expertise.
Now, I just need to add tags and I can publish. I'm not creating a new tag for "phlegm." I already have "saliva" and "bodily fluids" and I don't like thinking about why both seem not quite right. Why am I imposing this blog-writing problem on you, the reader, for whose comfort and convenience I purported to care?
Well, what's most convenient is not to read anything not absolutely necessary — warning labels, traffic signs, etc. — and comfort is complex in the realm of reading. There must be discomfort (of a crudely subtle kind).
Posts
19 comments:
If etiquette is about putting people at their ease, shouldn’t one’s writing about etiquette put readers at their ease? And shouldn’t writing about those who write about etiquette do the same?
Yet none of those involved in this recursive labyrinth wants to touch that loogie on the sidewalk. It just sits there, richly glistening. No tag, though, thank goodness!
"I don't think deliberately creating double meanings like that is a good click bait strategy"
If a strategy works, does that make it a good strategy?
My first impression was to be reminded of “the promises” in AA, which includes “you will intuitively know how to handle situations which used to baffle you.” Which is true, but people in recovery sometimes handle situations badly anyway—sometimes knowing how to handle it right isn’t enough to stop you from handling it badly.
Saliva and phlegm are not the same—both are gross, but phlegm is grosser. I completely understand why you don’t want to dwell too much on whether to add another “yucky” tag.
---There must be discomfort (of a crudely subtle kind).
But that discomfort can be minimized by an endless loop of confirmation bias.
I just wonder if any other blog writer thinks as deeply about their prose, grammar, sentence structure, word meaning/origin as you do. Do any others look to be so precise in their wording? I doubt many- if any- do. Surely you should be known for that. I wonder if you are...?
Manners/etiquette is the oil that keeps civilized society running.
"catered to nouveau riche Chinese interested in learning Western-style snobbery"
Would it be overly Western-style snobbish to suggest that this might contain an error?
I made it through the trailer without being certain if the show is satire or in earnest.
Did Sarah Jane get sick of him calling her his Ho?
Thanks for the link to the trailer.
The show looks really really bad.
"Crudely subtle"? When Althouse first used this term, I assumed it was a typo, that she meant "cruelly subtle." Twice in the same blog clearly signals intentionality. What next? Althouse shifting her political stance to crude neutrality?
Heinlein knew:
A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.
Formal courtesy between husband and wife is even more important than it is between strangers.
Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untravelled, the naive, the sophisticated deplore these formalities as 'empty,' 'meaningless,' or 'dishonest,' and scorn to use them. No matter how 'pure' their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.
I just watched the trailer; I have Netflix so I might check it out. I find myself a bit conflicted. On the surface it does look dumb. Who really thinks the proper way to use a fan will Change Your Life? It was much the same thing when I first read Emily Post, which is chock full of outdated practices ("How to receive a gentleman caller").
However. . . . .learning to do seemingly trivial things well can, I believe, be the start of basic self-confidence which a lot of people lack. Other people also notice small things about you even when they think they don't. If you dress like a slob, you have to have (and display) an enormous amount of talent to overcome people's expectations that you are, in fact, a slob in all things.
There's a fine line between good manners and snobbery, I'll grant you that. But there is a line.
In the end, it's all about making other people feel good about being around you.
Can anyone explain the difference between "bodily fluid" and "body fluid?" In the former, "bodily" seems like an adverb trying to find an adjective to modify. ("The new Oldsmobile URINE-8 comes with a bodily fluid transmission - the perfect vehicle for pissing around town in!")
Asking for a friend.
I just want to take a short minute and say that sometimes, breaking up via text is the polite thing to do. That would be in situations like the one she was apparently in where she and the boyfriend had repeatedly discussed the possibility of a breakup. That means that one or both of them experienced ongoing ambivalence, too much talkiness, and other forms of time-wasting uncertainty. When the moment of enlightenment comes to one of the parties, it really probably is best just to text, because you are doing your former boyfriend the courtesy of indicating (the medium partly being the message) that this is really for real, and it's over-over.
Transnational etiquette... fluid or divergent religion... ethics... behavioral protocol.
Formal courtesy between husband and wife is even more important than it is between strangers.
In the worst case, whether his or her Choice, avoidance of the double-edged scalpel. In the best case, equal in rights and complementary in Nature/nature, reconciliation for his, her, and "our Posterity"'s ambition, 'till Her Choice do us part.
From sexting to nexting™
Post a Comment